Did the product have interaction on that level the ad showed when you bought it? No. Did the promised "Fall 2024" release ever come to true. No. Is it ever going to be true? Who knows?
Pretty much amounts to trickery and false advertisment.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pulls iPhone 16 Ad Showing Off 'More Personal Siri'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty much amounts to trickery and false advertisment.
Steve Jobs has been dead for 14 years (this year). If you think there hasn't been a flop with Steve in 14 years then... think again. Remember you're-holding-it-wrong-gate?
This mythologizing of Steve is ridiculous.
Yes, but I am responding in particular to your point that "the functionality you see in the commercial is all mockup and not actually real"
This is not automatically true.
Agree. There needs to be accountability somehow, somewhere. Can’t be just, “we have AI now, too!” and then not deliver.
a few months ago I would have agreed with you 100%. But the new models (chatGPT 4o and its comparables) are a noticable step up from what came before and are genuinely impressive compared to what came before. I've been using it a lot for stuff that I would have googled previously, as well as for coding and dev assistance. Sorry to tell you , but unless the momentum completely disintegrates, this is the future.
In your opinion Apple Maps wasn’t as bad. And while I can’t claim to know the mindset of management then or now. AI to me is a moving target in to becoming a commodity. Different than Apple Maps, a defining feature at the time.
Honestly, it seems like Siri and Apple Intelligence are not the strongest links of Apple. With all that money and still an embarrassment.
Yes, this is worse. Never saw a "Copeland" commercial showing it as a working product.
A) I'm happy they are holding this feature till its ready.
B) AI is clearly important- but what Apple advertised is good for a roadmap not a feature promise... seems like a mismanagement "thou shalt make this work on time" "no way its possible" [awkward rush to try... maybe people get fired...it still doesn't work] "ok I guess we need to delay this"
C) oof what a failure- I can't believe this ad was live until today... someone should have had the awareness to pull this months ago.
B) AI is clearly important- but what Apple advertised is good for a roadmap not a feature promise... seems like a mismanagement "thou shalt make this work on time" "no way its possible" [awkward rush to try... maybe people get fired...it still doesn't work] "ok I guess we need to delay this"
C) oof what a failure- I can't believe this ad was live until today... someone should have had the awareness to pull this months ago.
Ha what- keep re-selling something [this ad] well past when it should've been replaced?
If it doesn't work then it is mockup. Alpha versions that only work in a few certain scenarios are for all intents and purposes mockups of actual functionality. We're arguing semantics now.
Hey Siri, where can I get gas?
"There's a Taco Bell about 5 miles from your current location"
that's why I am still on 17.1.1. Pretty stable. Also waiting for that nice JB to be release
Everytime a new model has come along people said "this is the future". But none of them actually solve the issues that plaqued the previous models. As for AI being the future, I disagree. Even if it would become perfect (0 chance of that happenig) people would still go against it. And in some time 5-10 years we will have something new.
Same thing happened to 3D tvs/cinema, same thing happened to VR. They're marketing fads, that will go away once intrest goes away.
(this purely based on LLM based AI, true AI will someday be the future. But not for a long, long time)
I'm doing the Copland comparison, as the article states that a scrap and re-write is necessary.
First the hearing aid functionality, now the 'Hey Siri, what was his name'..
Looks like Apple`s targeting the 'over 70' demographic
Looks like Apple`s targeting the 'over 70' demographic
The marketing hype may fade, so if that's what's really bothering you then you may well be right. But until the tech is abandoned (which has zero chance of happening) then all those people who said "this is the future" will be correct.
I know we're shi**ing on Apple here and I'll get flak for defending Apple, but they're trying to do something that no one has really done before: create a SOTA LLM that will run on 8GB of RAM.
Now back to shi**ing on Apple:
they did this to themselves by putting in such low base amounts of RAM for so long.
And Lisa, PowerMac G4 Cube, Apple QuickTake Camera, Apple HiFi, Apple iPod Sox...
Like with the 3D TVs / Cinema and VR, you can still buy those. But 99% of the main market has long since moved on.
Until in 3-5 decades the technology improved beyond word guessing models (LLM), I don't see it being more than a fad.
OpenAI's claim on programming capabilities are disingenuous for a variety of reasons. I do not think it will ever be more than an assistant to software development because the prerequisites to hit the contrived SWE-bench success rate in reality would require humans to write tests and multiple iterations of test and prompt refinement to reach true completion.
Their ~50% correctness numbers are a lie. Researchers have found that there are multiple problems with the SWE-bench scenarios including solution leakage in the prompts (essentially the professor giving you the answer in the question in plaintext) and bad tests leading to code analysis passes that should be failures. These researchers found their correctness percentage is actually ~4% once you remove the scenarios where the work item had a partial or complete solution in the comments or the tests were faulty.
These companies are seeking profits and trying to talk MBA graduates into buying their products instead of adding payroll. They're misrepresenting the truth. Plain and simple.
Furthermore, the only reason using an LLM has become better than using Google is partly because Google has made their search result presentation much worse in addition to SEO cat and mouse games between content farms and Google. There is a strong suspicion that the increasing amount of AI generated slop is lowering the quality of Google's search results too. I have started using LLMs for the first line "hey how do you do this thing I vaguely know must exist on [X]" instead Google. However, I could get those answers easily from Google in 2015 from the first or first two or three result. That is often not the case now but I get these answers with less attribution so I'm often taking the LLM answer and trying to use it to refine a Google search to find a more human context (blog article, documentation, etc).